Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[quatona]

That's silly.

You mean you chose to believe that that´s silly?

 

[Chesterton]

No, I consulted my copy of the Compendium of Eternal Authoritative Expert Decisions On Stuff and, it is in truth and in fact, silly.

 

[Davian]

Excuse me, Davian, but I'm not getting either what your comment is supposed to tell me (Belief is not a conscious choice) or how your response connects with that post of mine. Maybe you could elaborate somewhat.

What I said is that there are two different uses of the term "free will" that get argued around here and it's important to any discussion to keep them separate.

You said "But when we speak of free will in religious discussions, that usually refers to the ability (or inability) to make one particular choice--the choice to follow God and, thus, be saved."

I am just trying to delineate the actual implications of these two difference uses of "free will" that you reference.

Belief is not a choice, as in I cannot consciously decide to believe that the Earth is flat etc., but for religious purposes, 'free will' means that we can make those choices (that we cannot actually make, like belief in a deity) but they must considered a choice, as we will* be held accountable for making, one way of the other.

*assuming the existence of a deity that hold individuals responsible for such "choices".

Am I close?

 

[Davian]

That's silly. Of course belief is a conscious choice. Do you believe men walked on the moon? If so (or if not), you may say it's because you're rational and the evidence indicates such and such, and blah, blah, but ultimately it's because you choose to believe the evidence. You can insert other words, like "I think that..." or "I feel that..." or "I find that..." but you're still talking about what you choose to believe.

Can you, for the next five minutes, consciously choose to think of the moon missions as being a complete hoax?

 

[Albion]

You said "But when we speak of free will in religious discussions, that usually refers to the ability (or inability) to make one particular choice--the choice to follow God and, thus, be saved."

I am just trying to delineate the actual implications of these two difference uses of "free will" that you reference.

Belief is not a choice, as in I cannot consciously decide to believe that the Earth is flat etc., but for religious purposes, 'free will' means that we can make those choices (that we cannot actually make, like belief in a deity) but they must considered a choice, as we will* be held accountable for making, one way of the other.

*assuming the existence of a deity that hold individuals responsible for such "choices".

I think I see now what you meant when saying "Belief is not a choice," yes. However, you were responding to a post in which I didn't stake out any claim but only wanted to clarify for future debate that it matters whether we speak of freewill in all decision-making or just in the matter of us coming to God (which is where it usually is centered.)

Therefore, I don't know if there's anything more to say about that except that I seriously doubt that man has freewill in the second situation, although many people can't imagine how that could be.

 

[Chesterton]

Can you, for the next five minutes, consciously choose to think of the moon missions as being a complete hoax?

You mean for five minutes, and then switch my belief back? No that's unrealistic, not how a reasoning mind works. Although technically I think it could be possible: all the living moonwalkers hold a press conference and announce that it had all been faked. Then five minutes later they say "April Fools!". So having forgotten it was April 1, I could have believed it was a hoax for five minutes. But the choice to believe would have been a conscious, reasoned decision I made with the information available.

 

[Davian]

You mean for five minutes, and then switch my belief back? No that's unrealistic, not how a reasoning mind works. Although technically I think it could be possible: all the living moonwalkers hold a press conference and announce that it had all been faked. Then five minutes later they say "April Fools!". So having forgotten it was April 1, I could have believed it was a hoax for five minutes. But the choice to believe would have been a conscious, reasoned decision I made with the information available.

Not-very-free-will then - in this example your will is heavily influenced by external influences.

But - keeping that thought for the moment - how does that work for gods? How does one make a "conscious, reasoned decision" to believe that gods exist in the absence of direct evidence for them?

 

[Chesterton]

Not-very-free-will then - in this example your will is heavily influenced by external influences.

It is free will. Again, free need not mean uninfluenced or unlimited. Nothing in the universe is free that way. We animals are the only thing which do exercise a range of freedom of choice and action.

The fact that you've limited it to a short time like five minutes is evidence that I am choosing, because if beliefs are completely determined by physical factors, internal and/or external, then it should probably be normal for beliefs to actually change minute by minute. The fact that it takes time for a mind to consider information, process it using reason, and come to a conclusion (whether right or wrong) shows that "I" am doing something, not that something is being done to "I". The mind is being a judge and jury, not a soldier following orders.

But - keeping that thought for the moment - how does that work for gods? How does one make a "conscious, reasoned decision" to believe that gods exist in the absence of direct evidence for them?

Never sure how to handle loaded questions like this. You or I may not know that there's never been any direct evidence, but then there is indirect evidence. I'll just post this from G. K. Chesterton:

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts. The secularist is not to be blamed because his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy; it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind. I mean that a man may well be less convinced of a philosophy from four books, than from one book, one battle, one landscape, and one old friend. The very fact that the things are of different kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion. Now, the non-Christianity of the average educated man to-day is almost always, to do him justice, made up of these loose but living experiences. I can only say that my evidences for Christianity are of the same vivid but varied kind as his evidences against it. For when I look at these various anti-Christian truths, I simply discover that none of them are true. I discover that the true tide and force of all the facts flows the other way.

 

[Albion]

Not-very-free-will then - in this example your will is heavily influenced by external influences.

But - keeping that thought for the moment - how does that work for gods? How does one make a "conscious, reasoned decision" to believe that gods exist in the absence of direct evidence for them?

THAT is the question that deserves to be asked. And especially how we can know the real god from among all the contenders.

(In fact, I have asked this several times myself here and get no direct replies. Good luck to you.)

 

[Davian]

It is free will. Again, free need not mean uninfluenced or unlimited. Nothing in the universe is free that way.

Free money that you have to work for.

We animals are the only thing which do exercise a range of freedom of choice and action.

Free to choose, within a small, constrained range, subject to external influences.

The fact that you've limited it to a short time like five minutes is evidence that I am choosing, because if beliefs are completely determined by physical factors, internal and/or external, then it should probably be normal for beliefs to actually change minute by minute. The fact that it takes time for a mind to consider information, process it using reason, and come to a conclusion (whether right or wrong) shows that "I" am doing something, not that something is being done to "I". The mind is being a judge and jury, not a soldier following orders.

From what I understand, your opinion would be opposite to what neuroscience is discovering.

Never sure how to handle loaded questions like this. You or I may not know that there's never been any direct evidence,

I do not claim there is no evidence; I just do not see it being presented.

but then there is indirect evidence. I'll just post this from G. K. Chesterton:

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts. The secularist is not to be blamed because his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy; it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind. I mean that a man may well be less convinced of a philosophy from four books, than from one book, one battle, one landscape, and one old friend. The very fact that the things are of different kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion. Now, the non-Christianity of the average educated man to-day is almost always, to do him justice, made up of these loose but living experiences. I can only say that my evidences for Christianity are of the same vivid but varied kind as his evidences against it. For when I look at these various anti-Christian truths, I simply discover that none of them are true. I discover that the true tide and force of all the facts flows the other way.

Unfalsifiable religious handwaving that could be done for any religion. A stronger case could be made for extraterrestrial aliens visiting pre-Columbian civilizations.

 

[Davian]

THAT is the question that deserves to be asked. And especially how we can know the real god from among all the contenders.

(In fact, I have asked this several times myself here and get no direct replies. Good luck to you.)

I am not seeking religion; that gods appear to be just characters in books is not an issue for me.

I am here to observe those that believe to the contrary, and the vast, intricate rationals developed to explain why they have faith in their particular religions, in the absence of direct evidence for them.

 

[Albion]

I am not seeking religion; that gods appear to be just characters in books is not an issue for me.

I am here to observe those that believe to the contrary, and the vast, intricate rationals developed to explain why they have faith in their particular religions, in the absence of direct evidence for them.

It really doesn't matter. The issue remains the same--how can Man come to know God? Is it because God makes it possible or is it because Man uses his own resources?

I am inclined to think that he does not have enough ability to know any particular God, although he might reason out that there is something higher than himself in the universe.

 

[Davian]

It really doesn't matter. The issue remains the same--how can Man come to know God? Is it because God makes it possible or is it because Man uses his own resources?

I am inclined to think that he does not have enough ability to know any particular God, although he might reason out that there is something higher than himself in the universe.

How did man come to know leprechauns?

 

[Albion]

How did man come to know leprechauns?

Is your point that there is no God to be known?

 

[Chesterton]

Free money that you have to work for.

If your will was determined by physics you wouldn't have to work at all.

Free to choose, within a small, constrained range, subject to external influences.

Yeah but stars and oceans and mountains can't choose anything. It's kind of a big deal.

From what I understand, your opinion would be opposite to what neuroscience is discovering.

Maybe they're doing it wrong.

I do not claim there is no evidence; I just do not see it being presented.

Where are you looking?

Unfalsifiable religious handwaving that could be done for any religion. A stronger case could be made for extraterrestrial aliens visiting pre-Columbian civilizations.

If that's how you see it believe in those then.

 

[Chesterton]

I am not seeking religion; that gods appear to be just characters in books is not an issue for me.

You chose "seeker" for your icon. What are you seeking?

 

[Davian]

Is your point that there is no God to be known?

Until the evidence for gods, of the personal type as described in the Bible and other religious texts, rises above that for leprechauns, I would say no.

 

[Davian]

If your will was determined by physics you wouldn't have to work at all.

What other falsifiable options are there?

Yeah but stars and oceans and mountains can't choose anything. It's kind of a big deal.

And I cannot consciously choose what I believe.

Maybe they're doing it wrong.

Present your scientific objection.

Where are you looking?

Where the religionists say to look.

If that's how you see it believe in those then.

lol. That they make a "better" case says more about the case for gods, than that for aliens.

 

[Davian]

You chose "seeker" for your icon. What are you seeking?

Accurate descriptions of reality.

 

[Chesterton]

What other falsifiable options are there?

None. I thought we had at least agreed on that.

And I cannot consciously choose what I believe.

Then your beliefs are as true or false as your digestion, which is to say they can't be true or false. If you feel otherwise you're deluded.

Present your scientific objection.

You have to tell me what they're doing first.

Where the religionists say to look.

YouTube?

lol. That they make a "better" case says more about the case for gods, than that for aliens.

No, not better, just the same case, meaning you have the same problem with gods and aliens: where did they come from? If you make the "g" a capital "G", then you have an answer. God. So the next question is where did God come from and the answer is He didn't come from anywhere He just is.

Accurate descriptions of reality.

Just for curiousity's sake, or are you working on a project of some sort?